Re: Proposal to apply mask to IP address set on rule

> It is extremely common to express a "subnet" as "addr/mask" and still
> have non-zero host bits in the "addr" part.
Is it? I never use that.

> IPF, for one other NetBSD example allows this.
I didn't even know it did.

> My IPF rules are filled with such examples.
Mine are not.

I would say that 192.168.123.248/28 is almost always an error, where you 
either meant 192.168.123.240/28 or 192.168.123.248/29. As is 192.168.123.0/8, 
where you probably swapped net and host len and meant /24.